Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vivek Walter vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 M.Cr.C. No.35562/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 5th OF MARCH, 2024
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No. 35562 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
VIVEK WALTER S/O SHRI IGNATIUS WALTER,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SENIOR
CAMERAMAN, T.V. TODAY, AAJ TAK, FC-8,
SECTOR-16A, NOIDA (U.P.) NOIDA SECTOR 20,
GAUTAM BUDDH NAGAR (UTTAR PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI ANUJ SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
MAHILA THANA MADAN MAHAL, DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. NAMRATA WILLIAMS W/O VIVEK
WALTER, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O
HOUSE NO.182, APR COLONY, KATANGA,
POLICE STATION GORAKHPUR, DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(STATE BY SHRI DILIP PARIHAR - PANEL LAWYER)
............................................................................................................................................
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for
quashment of charge sheet as well as order dated 15/06/2023 passed by
J.M.F.C., Jabalpur in Criminal Case No.2017/2021 by which charges
under Section 498-A, 406, 506 Part-II of IPC have been framed.
2. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that although the order
framing charges is revisable order but since the entire charge sheet has
also been challenged, therefore applicant may not be relegated back to
remedy of Criminal Revision.
3. Although the order under challenge is a revisable order but at the
insistence of counsel for the applicant, it was heard on merits.
4. Respondent No.2 approached the Parivar Paramarsh Committee
against the applicant and accordingly, matter was placed before Parivar
Paramarsh Committee for reconciliation. Multiple informations were
given to the applicant and with great difficulty he appeared before
Committee on 18/09/2021 and during reconciliation proceedings, it was
decided that parties shall again appear on 02/10/2021. Signatures of the
applicant were also obtained on reconciliation proceedings but thereafter
on 02/10/2021 applicant did not appear and on the said date, respondent
No.2 submitted another application on the basis of which FIR was
lodged against the applicant for offence under Section 498-A of IPC.
5. It is the case of respondent No.2 that she got married to the
applicant on 12/02/2007 in accordance with Christian rights and rituals
in Christ Church, Jabalpur. Applicant had disclosed that he is the son of
Francis Walter. Before marriage, applicant had insisted that household
articles, Gold jewellery and Car should be given and accordingly, on
02/02/2007 articles were sent by her mother on a Truck. Under the
pressure of applicant, arrangements of marriage were made in Hotel
Satya Ashoka. At the time of cutting cake, applicant demanded Car
which they could not give, therefore he demanded a Gold chain of 3
Tola. Cash gifts of Rs.5,00,000/- which were received in the marriage
and other gifts like Laptop, Watches, Gold jewellery etc. were taken by
the applicant under pressure. In the month of March, 2007, applicant
started abusing and assaulting the respondent No.2. Thereafter he took
an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from her aunt so that he can take her for
honeymoon. Earlier he suppressed his disease and after the marriage, he
insisted that since he is required to undergo an operation, therefore she
should bring money from her mother. On one day, he also twisted her
Wrist, as a result she is still feeling pain. After operation, she had taken
care of the applicant. Every day applicant used to throw articles on her
face and was insisting that she should bring money. His friends used to
visit house and he was in habit of remaining inside a locked room with
them. In the month of October, 2007, applicant threw a paper-weight
and Tiffin box on her and also broke down her mobile phone and locked
her in the bathroom and also extended a threat that in case if incident is
narrated to anybody, then he would spoil her life. Even sister of the
applicant has lodged a report against him on the allegation of assault and
as a result, applicant was also lodged in Tihar Jail. Applicant assaulted
her twice in the month of October and November, 2007 and ultimately
he sent her to her parental home with a direction that she should bring a
Car and should also search for job. Applicant also picked up a quarrel
with his father Francis Walter and damaged his Corolla Car. He also
extended a threat that in case if the incident is narrated to anybody, then
he would get the abortion done. When Francis Walter requested them to
vacate the house, then applicant brought her to Jabalpur in the month of
December and took an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- so that he can take a
house on rent in Sector 41. The incident of assault has become a regular
feature. Applicant is in habit of talking to the girls on phone and also
continuously consumes liquor during the whole night. In the month of
June, 2008, applicant had pushed her, as a result she fell down on the
ground and because of the injury she was required to remain
hospitalized for one day. In the month of July, 2008 applicant had also
burnt the belongings of her child and also assaulted her by Screwdriver.
Because of all mental cruelties, respondent No.2 was required to
hospitalize in emergency ward. After her discharge, applicant sold her
four gold bangles. Again he sent the respondent No.2 to her parental
home for bringing money. She brought her ailing child to her parental
home and all the expenses were borne by her mother. Applicant used to
assault her and whenever her child was crying he used to pull him from
his legs. In the month of December, 2008, her mother had organized a
function of 500 persons on the occasion of Baptism (Namkaran
Samaroh). Her mother had deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- in the
ICICI account of the applicant. Applicant also took a credit card in the
name of respondent No.2 and did not deposit the amount. When she
came to know about the said fact in the month of August, 2020, then her
brother cleared the bill. The applicant took her mother to Greater Noida
and insisted that she should purchase a house for him. In the month of
August, 2009, applicant sent the respondent No.2 back to Jabalpur along
with her ailing son with an instruction that she should alienate the house
situated at Lucknow so that he can purchase a new house. He had also
extended a threat to her mother that in case if any complaint is made,
then he is working in Media house and he would get them killed. Now
she has come to know that applicant has performed second marriage
during the subsistence of first marriage. Although she had suffered
mental and physical atrocities for the last several years but in order to
save her married life, she did not utter single word and now since the
applicant has performed second marriage which has directly affected on
the mind of her child, therefore he should be punished. Police after
completing the investigation filed the charge-sheet.
6. Challenging the charge-sheet, it is submitted by counsel for the
applicant that respondent No.2 had earlier made a complaint on
17/03/2021 (Annexure-A/3) and since the allegations made in the said
complaint (Annexure-A/3) are identical to the allegations made in the
FIR, therefore FIR in question is not maintainable because for the same
offence, two prosecution cannot take place. The allegations made
against the applicant are false. Even respondent No.2 is residing in her
parental home for the last several years without any justifiable reason.
FIR is barred by time. False allegation has been made that the applicant
has married another girl, whereas respondent No.2 knows that to declare
such marriage void, she has to approach another forum but in order to
defame the applicant in the Society, false allegations have been made.
Respondent No.2 is a highly qualified person and is working on the post
of Professor in XIDAS College at Mandla Road, Jabalpur and is earning
Rs.75,000/- per month. Therefore, she never bothered about her husband
and the FIR has been lodged just in order to harass him.
7. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the applicant.
8. Before considering the allegations made against the applicant, this
Court would like to consider the scope of interference at this stage.
9. The Supreme Court in the case of XYZ v. State of Gujarat
reported in (2019) 10 SCC 337 has held as under :
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
after perusing the impugned order and other material
placed on record, we are of the view that the High Court
exceeded the scope of its jurisdiction conferred under
Section 482 CrPC, and quashed the proceedings. Even
before the investigation is completed by the
investigating agency, the High Court entertained the writ
petition, and by virtue of interim order granted by the
High Court, further investigation was stalled. Having
regard to the allegations made by the
appellant/informant, whether the 2nd respondent by
clicking inappropriate pictures of the appellant has
blackmailed her or not, and further the 2nd respondent
has continued to interfere by calling Shoukin Malik or
not are the matters for investigation. In view of the
serious allegations made in the complaint, we are of the
view that the High Court should not have made a roving
inquiry while considering the application filed under
Section 482 CrPC. Though the learned counsel have
made elaborate submissions on various contentious
issues, as we are of the view that any observation or
findings by this Court, will affect the investigation and
trial, we refrain from recording any findings on such
issues. From a perusal of the order of the High Court, it
is evident that the High Court has got carried away by
the agreement/settlement arrived at, between the parties,
and recorded a finding that the physical relationship of
the appellant with the 2nd respondent was consensual.
When it is the allegation of the appellant, that such
document itself is obtained under threat and coercion, it
is a matter to be investigated. Further, the complaint of
the appellant about interference by the 2nd respondent
by calling Shoukin Malik and further interference is also
a matter for investigation. By looking at the contents of
the complaint and the serious allegations made against
2nd respondent, we are of the view that the High Court
has committed error in quashing the proceedings.
(Underline supplied)
10. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. S.
Martin & Ors. reported in (2018) 5 SCC 718 has held as under:-
"7. In our view the assessment made by the High Court
at a stage when the investigation was yet to be
completed, is completely incorrect and uncalled for
..........."
11. The Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Das v. State of
Jharkhand, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 319 has held as under :
12. The counsel appearing for the appellant also drew
our attention to the same decision which is relied upon
in the impugned judgment by the High Court i.e. State
of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. In the said decision, this
Court held that it may not be possible to lay down any
specific guidelines or watertight compartment as to
when the power under Section 482 CrPC could be or is
to be exercised. This Court, however, gave an
exhaustive list of various kinds of cases wherein such
power could be exercised. In para 103 of the said
judgment, this Court, however, hastened to add that as a
note of caution it must be stated that the power of
quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very
sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the
rarest of rare cases for the Court would not be justified
in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the
first information report or in the complaint and that the
extraordinary or the inherent powers do not confer an
arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its
whim or caprice.
12. The Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Akram Siddiqui v.
State of Bihar reported in (2019) 13 SCC 350 has held as under :
5. Ordinarily and in the normal course, the High Court
when approached for quashing of a criminal proceeding
will not appreciate the defence of the accused; neither
would it consider the veracity of the document(s) on
which the accused relies. However an exception has
been carved out by this Court in Yin Cheng Hsiung v.
Essem Chemical Industries; State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal and Harshendra Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley to the
effect that in an appropriate case where the document
relied upon is a public document or where veracity
thereof is not disputed by the complainant, the same can
be considered.
13. The Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. v. Gourishetty
Mahesh reported in (2010) 11 SCC 226 has held as under :
18. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark
upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is
reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of
it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function
of the trial Judge/Court. It is true that the Court should
be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and
should take all relevant facts and circumstances into
consideration before issuing process, otherwise, it would
be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to
unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the
same time, Section 482 is not an instrument handed over
to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and brings
about its closure without full-fledged enquiry.
19. Though the High Court may exercise its power
relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, the power should be exercised sparingly. For
example, where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute
any offence or make out a case against the accused or
allegations in the FIR do not disclose a cognizable
offence or do not disclose commission of any offence
and make out a case against the accused or where there
is express legal bar provided in any of the provisions of
the Code or in any other enactment under which a
criminal proceeding is initiated or sufficient material to
show that the criminal proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused due to private and personal
grudge, the High Court may step in.
20. Though the powers possessed by the High Court
under Section 482 are wide, however, such power
requires care/caution in its exercise. The interference
must be on sound principles and the inherent power
should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.
We make it clear that if the allegations set out in the
complaint do not constitute the offence of which
cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open
to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of
inherent powers under Section 482.
14. The Supreme Court in the case of M. Srikanth v. State of
Telangana, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 373 has held as under :
17. It could thus be seen, that this Court has held,
that where the allegations made in the FIR or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute a
case against the accused, the High Court would be
justified in quashing the proceedings. Further, it has
been held that where the uncontroverted allegations in
the FIR and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose any offence and make out a case
against the accused, the Court would be justified in
quashing the proceedings.
15. The Supreme Court in the case of CBI v. Arvind Khanna
reported in (2019) 10 SCC 686 has held as under :
17. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing
the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel
on both sides, we are of the view that the impugned
order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In
a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, the High
Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts
and allowed the petition. Defence of the accused is to
be tested after appreciating the evidence during trial.
The very fact that the High Court, in this case, went
into the most minute details, on the allegations made
by the appellant CBI, and the defence put forth by the
respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Court
has exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.
18. In our view, the assessment made by the High
Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken
cognizance of by the competent court, is completely
incorrect and uncalled for."
16. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of State of MP Vs.
Kunwar Singh by order dated 30.06.2021 passed in Cr.A. No.709/2021
has held that a detailed and meticulous appreciation of evidence at the
stage of 482 of CrPC is not permissible and should not be done. In the
case of Kunwar Singh (supra), the Supreme Court held as under:-
"8........At this stage, the High Court ought not to
be scrutinizing the material in the manner in which
the trial court would do in the course of the criminal
trial after evidence is adduced. In doing so, the High
Court has exceeded the well-settled limits on the
exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of
CrPC. A detailed enquiry into the merits of the
allegations was not warranted. The FIR is not
expected to be an encyclopedia..........."
17. Similar view has been taken by Supreme Court in the cases of
Munshiram Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2018) 5 SCC 678,
Teeja Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2014) 15 SCC 221,
State of Orissa Vs. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan reported in (2012) 4 SCC
547, S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal reported in (2010) 5 SCC 600,
Sangeeta Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2019) 2 SCC 336,
Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460,
Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Vs. Kovuri Satyanarayana Reddy
reported in (2012) 12 SCC 437, M.N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar
Srivastav reported in (2009) 9 SCC 682.
18. Thus, it is clear that this Court can quash the proceedings only if
un-controverted allegations do not make out an offence.
19. The first question which has been advanced by counsel for the
applicant is that once a complaint was already filed containing the
similar allegations which did not culminate into FIR, then the second
complaint pertaining the similar allegations should not have been
registered as FIR.
20. It is well established principle of law that second FIR for the same
offence is not maintainable. However, the facts of the present case are
different. The respondent No. 2 had made a complaint which did not
culminate into FIR and if FIR is registered on the second complaint,
then would not mean that the FIR in question is bad amounts to double
jeopardy because the applicant was never prosecuted and tried for the
same offence on earlier occasions. Therefore, the contention of applicant
that FIR is bad in law as it has been registered on the second complaint
made by respondent No. 2 is misconceived.
21. It is next contended by counsel for applicant that the allegations
made against applicant are false.
22. It is well established principle of law that this Court in exercise of
power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot go into the correctness of the
allegations. The prosecution can be quashed only if the uncontroverted
allegations do not make out an offence. It is well established principle of
law that this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
should not kill an unborn baby.
23. The Supreme Court in the case of Satvinder Kaur Vs. State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Another, reported in (1999) 8 SCC 728
has held as under:-
"14. Further, the legal position is well settled that if
an offence is disclosed the court will not normally
interfere with an investigation into the case and will
permit investigation into the offence alleged to be
completed. If the FIR, prima facie, discloses the
commission of an offence, the court does not normally
stop the investigation, for, to do so would be to trench
upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into
cognizable offences. [State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar
Guha, (1982) 1 SCC 561 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 283] It is
also settled by a long course of decisions of this Court
that for the purpose of exercising its power under
Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR or a complaint, the
High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis
of the allegations made in the complaint or the
documents accompanying the same per se; it has no
jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of
the allegations. [Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, (1985)
2 SCC 370, 395 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 180]
15. Hence, in the present case, the High Court
committed a grave error in accepting the contention of
the respondent that the investigating officer had no
jurisdiction to investigate the matters on the alleged
ground that no part of the offence was committed
within the territorial jurisdiction of the police station at
Delhi. The appreciation of the evidence is the function
of the courts when seized of the matter. At the stage of
investigation, the material collected by an investigating
officer cannot be judicially scrutinized for arriving at a
conclusion that the police station officer of a particular
police station would not have territorial jurisdiction. In
any case, it has to be stated that in view of Section
178(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code, when it is
uncertain in which of the several local areas an offence
was committed, or where it consists of several acts
done in different local areas, the said offence can be
enquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction
over any of such local areas. Therefore, to say at the
stage of investigation that the SHO, Police Station
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi was not having territorial
jurisdiction, is on the face of it, illegal and erroneous.
That apart, Section 156(2) contains an embargo that no
proceeding of a police officer shall be challenged on the
ground that he has no territorial power to investigate.
The High Court has completely overlooked the said
embargo when it entertained the petition of Respondent
2 on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction.
16. Lastly, it is required to be reiterated that while
exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code of quashing an investigation,
the court should bear in mind what has been observed
in the State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan [(1999) 2 SCC
651 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 304 : JT (1999) 1 SC 486] to the
following effect: (SCC pp. 654-55, para 6)
"Having said so, the Court gave a note of
caution to the effect that the power of quashing
the criminal proceedings should be exercised
very sparingly with circumspection and that
too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court
will not be justified in embarking upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or
the complaint and that the extraordinary or
inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary
jurisdiction on the court to act according to its
whim or caprice. It is too well settled that the
first information report is only an initiation to
move the machinery and to investigate into a
cognizable offence and, therefore, while
exercising the power and deciding whether the
investigation itself should be quashed, utmost
care should be taken by the court and at that
stage, it is not possible for the court to sift the
materials or to weigh the materials and then
come to the conclusion one way or the other. In
the case of State of U.P. v. O.P.
Sharma [(1996) 7 SCC 705 : 1996 SCC (Cri)
497 : JT (1996) 2 SC 488] a three-Judge Bench
of this Court indicated that the High Court
should be loath to interfere at the threshold to
thwart the prosecution exercising its inherent
power under Section 482 or under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India, as the
case may be, and allow the law to take its own
course. The same view was reiterated by yet
another three-Judge Bench of this Court in the
case of Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar
Bhada [(1997) 2 SCC 397 : 1997 SCC (Cri)
415 : JT (1996) 11 SC 175] where this Court
sounded a word of caution and stated that such
power should be sparingly and cautiously
exercised only when the court is of the opinion
that otherwise there will be gross miscarriage
of justice. The Court had also observed that
social stability and order is required to be
regulated by proceeding against the offender as
it is an offence against society as a whole."
24. The Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Raghuvanshi Vs. Ajay
Arora and Others, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 581 has held as under:-
"30. It is a settled legal proposition that while
considering the case for quashing of the criminal
proceedings the court should not "kill a stillborn child",
and appropriate prosecution should not be stifled unless
there are compelling circumstances to do so. An
investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if
the allegations have some substance. When a
prosecution at the initial stage is to be quashed, the test
to be applied by the court is whether the uncontroverted
allegations as made, prima facie establish the offence.
At this stage neither can the court embark upon an
inquiry, whether the allegations in the complaint are
likely to be established by evidence nor should the
court judge the probability, reliability or genuineness of
the allegations made therein. More so, the charge-sheet
filed or charges framed at the initial stage can be
altered/amended or a charge can be added at the
subsequent stage, after the evidence is adduced in view
of the provisions of Section 216 CrPC. So, the order
passed even by the High Court or this Court is subject
to the order which would be passed by the trial court at
a later stage."
25. The Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of
Investigation Vs. A. Ravishankar Prasad and Others, reported in
(2009) 6 SCC 351 has held as under:-
"17. Undoubtedly, the High Court possesses
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. These inherent powers of the High
Court are meant to act ex debito justitiae to do real and
substantial justice, for the administration of which
alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the
court.
18. Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be
exercised in the following category of cases:
(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court; and
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
19. This Court time and again has observed that the
extraordinary power under Section 482 CrPC should be
exercised sparingly and with great care and caution.
The Court would be justified in exercising the power
when it is imperative to exercise the power in order to
prevent injustice. In order to understand the nature and
scope of power under Section 482 CrPC it has become
necessary to recapitulate the ratio of the decided cases.
20. Reference to the following cases would reveal
that the Courts have consistently taken the view that
they must use the court's extraordinary power only to
prevent injustice and secure the ends of justice. We
have largely inherited the provisions of inherent powers
from the English jurisprudence, therefore the principles
decided by the English courts would be of relevance for
us. It is generally agreed that the Crown Court has
inherent power to protect its process from abuse. The
English courts have also used inherent power to achieve
the same objective."
26. There are specific allegations of demand of dowry as well as
mental and physical harassment. By no stretch of imagination it can be
said that if those allegations are accepted on their face value, still they
would not make out an offence under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 Part-II
of IPC.
27. So far as the submissions made by counsel for applicant that
respondent No. 2 is residing in her parental home for no justifiable
reason is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. The respondent No. 2
has specifically alleged that on account of mental and physical
harassment, she is residing in her parental home. The act of respondent
No. 2 in residing in her parental home has to be considered in light of
the allegations made by her. Furthermore, compelling a married woman
to live in her parental home on account of none satisfaction of demand
of dowry by itself would amounts to cruelty.
28. The Supreme Court in the case of Rupali Devi Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 384 has held as under:-
"14. "Cruelty" which is the crux of the offence under
Section 498-A IPC is defined in Black's Law
Dictionary to mean "the intentional and malicious
infliction of mental or physical suffering on a living
creature, esp. a human; abusive treatment; outrage
(abuse, inhuman treatment, indignity)". Cruelty can be
both physical or mental cruelty. The impact on the
mental health of the wife by overt acts on the part of the
husband or his relatives; the mental stress and trauma of
being driven away from the matrimonial home and her
helplessness to go back to the same home for fear of
being ill-treated are aspects that cannot be ignored
while understanding the meaning of the expression
"cruelty" appearing in Section 498-A of the Penal
Code. The emotional distress or psychological effect on
the wife, if not the physical injury, is bound to continue
to traumatise the wife even after she leaves the
matrimonial home and takes shelter at the parental
home. Even if the acts of physical cruelty committed in
the matrimonial house may have ceased and such acts
do not occur at the parental home, there can be no
doubt that the mental trauma and the psychological
distress caused by the acts of the husband including
verbal exchanges, if any, that had compelled the wife to
leave the matrimonial home and take shelter with her
parents would continue to persist at the parental home.
Mental cruelty borne out of physical cruelty or abusive
and humiliating verbal exchanges would continue in the
parental home even though there may not be any overt
act of physical cruelty at such place."
29. This Court in the case of Amar Singh Vs. Smt. Vimla, decided
on 22.06.2021 in Criminal Revision No. 2376/2020 (Gwalior Bench)
has held that compelling a married woman to live in her parental home
amounts to cruelty.
30. So far as the another contention of counsel for applicant that in
case if he has remarried, then respondent No. 2 has an option of
challenging the second marriage of applicant as void is concerned, the
same is misconceived. Merely because an act of a person involves civil
ingredients also would not mean that he cannot be prosecuted for
criminal offence in case if such an act contains criminal ingredients also.
31. The Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corpn. Vs. NEPC
India Ltd. and Others, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 has held as
under:-
"12.... (v) A given set of facts may make out: (a)
purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence;
or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A
commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart
from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in
civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the
nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different
from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the
complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach
of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has
been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the
criminal proceedings. The test is whether the
allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence
or not."
32. Thus, it is clear that a particular case may simultaneously involves
civil dispute as well as criminal offence and ingredients and elements of
criminal offence may co-exists and under these circumstances, action
under criminal law can also be maintained. Furthermore, bigamy is also
an offence.
33. No other arguments were advanced by counsel for the applicant.
34. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out warranting
interference.
35. The application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
VC/SM/AL
Date: 2024.03.19 19:08:00 +05'30'
